Writing is my artistic expression. My keyboard is my brush. Words are my medium. My blog is my canvas. And committing to writing daily makes me feel like an artist.
This past Christmas holiday I listened to the audio versions of George Orwell’s 1984 and then Aldous Huxley’s Brave New World back to back. The contrast is best described in a comic by Stuart McMillen, based on Neil Postman’s ‘Amusing Ourselves to Death’, shared below.
But before reading the comic take a look at this video interview of Aldous Huxley in 1962, Love Your Servitude:
Both Orwell’s and Huxley’s dystopian worlds are scary, but Huxley’s is a little more chilling in how it connects to the world we live in today.
I saw a video a few days ago of hundreds of unmasked protesters, packed together in a square in the United Kingdom, singing ‘Stick your poison vaccines up your ass’ to the tune of ‘She’ll Be Coming Round the Mountain When She Comes’. I wanted to write about it sooner, but I could only come from an angle of anger and disgust. It would have been a good rant, that would probably have made me feel better, but I’m done ranting with the purpose of making myself feel better. I’ve been seeking out joy, determination, fun facts, and when dealing with our current situation, humour, as sort of coping mechanisms for dealing with the discord that seems to be pervasive right now.
There is an epic battle going on. It is a battle on many battle grounds. It is a battle happening across the world. It is a battle that pits humanity against reality. Here are six of the battlegrounds:
The Covid-19 Pandemic: Many people are dying – versus – Protests against the preventions and lockdowns to prevent the spread.
Vaccines: They save lives – versus – They are dangerous (or they will be used to monitor and track us).
Climate change: It’s the greatest threat we face as a species – versus – It’s a hoax.
Science: Seeking objective facts – versus – un-objective and agenda-driven propaganda.
Freedom: Government are here to serve and protect us – versus – Governments are corrupt and stripping away our freedoms in an attempt to control us.
Civil liberties: Issues like racism, gender identity, pro-choice, freedom of expression – versus – Religious values, as well as both right-wing (QAnon) and left-wing (Antifa extremists) using hateful tactics to argue their points.
I purposely didn’t use the word ‘Truth’ before now. I believe that we are living in a post-Truth era (with an intentional capital ‘T’). I’ll leave you with Stuart McMillan’s webcomic about Neil Postman’s book, ‘Amusing Ourselves to Death‘. I recently listened to both 1984 and Brave New World back-to-back. I was struck by the contrast between a world run based on fear – versus – one run based on pleasure. I think that things are so messed up right now that we are stuck in a dystopian novel where both worlds exist simultaneously. Many people live in constant fear based on ‘facts’ that are cherry-picked, on half-truths, and even made up completely. Many more are living in a social media based alternate reality where their truths are based on a ‘news’ feed designed to entertain with a confusing mix of facts and fiction.
We are living in an era where humanity has no grasp on reality. Fiction and fact are interchangeable. ‘T’ruth is subjective. And a common, collective plan for peace and prosperity seems further away than any worlds that Huxley or Orwell could fabricate.
I enjoy seeing funny quotes attributed to the wrong people. Like these two examples:
The second one is an assault to the senses of fiction and science fiction fans. When the joke is obvious, there is comedy in the creation of these fake attributions. However, we are living in an era where Truth seems more and more subjective.
What’s scary about this is that I consider myself fairly objective, but I’m finding it harder and harder to know what to believe. What I do know is that newspapers today come with tremendous bias, and something as simple as this chart from two years ago is even more exaggerated now, with papers moving further towards the extremes:
Here is an example of something that I know little about, and feel that the more I read, the further I am from having a clear understanding of where to put a value on what’s true: Hydroxychloroquine as a treatment for COVID-19.
Excerpt: THE HYPE over the drug hydroxychloroquine was fueled by President Trump and Fox News, whose hosts touted it repeatedly on air. The president’s claims were not backed by scientific evidence, but he was enthusiastic. “What do you have to lose?” he has asked. In desperation, the public snapped up pills and the Food and Drug Administration issued an emergency use authorization on March 28 for the drug to be given to hospitalized patients. On Thursday, Mr. Trump declared, “So we have had some great response, in terms of doctors writing letters and people calling on the hydroxychloroquine.”
Now comes the evidence. Two large studies of hospitalized patients in New York City have found the drug was essentially useless against the virus.
Excerpt: Drug known for treating malaria used by U.S. doctors mostly for high-risk COVID-19 patients.
An international poll of more than 6,000 doctors released Thursday found that the antimalarial drug hydroxychloroquine was the most highly rated treatment for the novel coronavirus.
The survey conducted by Sermo, a global health care polling company, of 6,227 physicians in 30 countries found that 37% of those treating COVID-19 patients rated hydroxychloroquine as the “most effective therapy” from a list of 15 options.
Of the physicians surveyed, 3,308 said they had either ordered a COVID-19 test or been involved in caring for a coronavirus patient, and 2,171 of those responded to the question asking which medications were most effective.
So, the ‘evidence’ presented in the second article came well before the the first article was printed. Which article holds more ‘Truth’?
First, if you had to guess, which of these newspapers is more Left-of-Centre – Liberal and which of these papers is more Right-of-Centre – Conservative?
Let’s have a look at the sources on MEDIA BIAS/FACT Check. (Full disclosure, I have not checked the reliability of this website.)
Take a moment to read the final, bolded comments that I clipped from this fact check website about each paper. They would suggest the Post being more reliable than the Times because of a lack of fact checking at the Times. That said, the source for the survey linked to in the Times article checked out when I looked into it. The same source, Sermo, is now toting Remdesivir use more than Hydroxychloroquine, and even then stating that, “Remdesivir Seen as Only Moderately Effective”.
I don’t have the time or mental energy to go fact-checking every article I read, but I do find myself evaluating the source of the information a lot more. However, quite honestly, even when I do that it has now become blatantly easy to read the bias of the reporter woven into almost every news article that’s based on a ‘hot’ topic. How can you look to the news for objectivity when that objectivity is blatantly disregarded?
I’ve now started reading headlines with the following ‘BS Filter’ as a lens: “Does this article headline anger me, or try to anger me? If the answer is ‘yes’, I either ignore the article, or I open it with my ‘BS detectors’ fully engaged. Click bait articles tend not to be focused on sharing any kind of ‘Truth’.
In this day and age of abundant information, I thought Truth would rise above the BS, but that hasn’t been the case. Neil Postman said,
“We were keeping our eye on 1984. When the year came and the prophecy didn’t, thoughtful Americans sang softly in praise of themselves. The roots of liberal democracy had held. Wherever else the terror had happened, we, at least, had not been visited by Orwellian nightmares.
But we had forgotten that alongside Orwell’s dark vision, there was another – slightly older, slightly less well known, equally chilling: Aldous Huxley’s Brave New World. Contrary to common belief even among the educated, Huxley and Orwell did not prophesy the same thing. Orwell warns that we will be overcome by an externally imposed oppression. But in Huxley’s vision, no Big Brother is required to deprive people of their autonomy, maturity and history. As he saw it, people will come to love their oppression, to adore the technologies that undo their capacities to think.
It seems that there is an information war on both our capacities to think, and our capacities to seek the Truth.
“Technological change is neither additive nor subtractive. It is ecological. I mean “ecological” in the same sense as the word is used by environmental scientists. One significant change generates total change. If you remove the caterpillars from a given habitat, you are not left with the same environment minus caterpillars: you have a new environment, and you have reconstituted the conditions of survival; the same is true if you add caterpillars to an environment that has had none. This is how the ecology of media works as well. A new technology does not add or subtract something. It changes everything.” ~ Neil Postman,Technopoly: The Surrender of Culture to Technology
A tool is just a tool!I can use a hammer to build a house and I can use the same hammer on a human skull.It’s not the tool, but how you use it that matters.
That’s how technology isn’t just ecological. Adding a caterpillar to an environment changes the environment, it changes the equilibrium in unforeseen ways, but ways that are inevitable based on all the moving parts seeking to find a new balance. The environment finds a new homeostasis.
Technology has bias. It has uses, and it has unintended uses. A technological advancement doesn’t just have unintended consequences, it also has unintended uses and misuses. When it is misused, the response is often an over-reaction. We’ve seen that in schools with internet filters, cell phones, and social media.
Technology also has bias in what we pay attention to. The idea of a multiple choice test is a technology that made questions about ‘the what’ of specific content more relevant than ‘the how’ and ‘the why’. It also invited teachers to develop questions and answers designed (on purpose and by mistake) to confuse the student… after all, it defeats the purpose of a multiple choice test to have only one answer be relevant, but only one answer is ‘right’.
A laptop in a student’s hands is a powerful tool for learning, and it’s a powerful tool for distraction. It’s a window into the world, it’s also a tool that can isolate students from their peers. It’s a way to transmit information to students, it’s also a way to give them voice and choice in a project.
In each of these cases, technology is disruptive. It alters the environment in unforeseen ways that do not move towards a new equilibrium. Technology doesn’t move the environment towards homeostasis, instead it undermines norms. It invites uses and misuses that are unintended or unwelcome, and that brings new concerns as well as new opportunities.
Technology doesn’t just change our relationship to the tool, it changes the relationship to our environment. It changes everything.
However, we can expect tools to be used in unexpected ways, and we can respond with intention and purpose, which is a lot different that anger and frustration.
We can ask ourselves what the intentions of a tool’s use are, and we can reflect on whether these intentions are being met. Technology will fundamentally change our learning environments, technology will support and/or undermine our intentions. We are better off influencing this bias thoughtfully rather than letting unintended biases undermine us. Hammers can produce some amazing work, or they can cause a lot of damage.
